• Welcome to PurpleFlock! Sign up here so that you can chat with your fellow Ravens fans.

Lamar Jackson

OURavensFan said:
RSR is something else, they’ve convinced themselves Lamar isn’t coming back and it’s in his best interest to sit out and let Huntley struggle. Instead of coming back and making a playoff run
Click to expand...
Out here acting like we’re the Texans or something. We’re in the thick of a playoff race. Despite the struggles, Lamar will be back and be as committed as ever. He doesn’t want to be sitting on the sidelines.
 
airconteka said:
In a perfect market the best would earn the most, the second the second most and so on, but the market is imperfect and when it's your turn to pay your QB then typically you are paying them at the top of the market as the risk of trying to find a replacement at the same level is so high.

Get him a new coordinator next year and draft a WR early and tag Lamar and see what happens then commit.
Click to expand...
The risk of moving on from Lamar is very high. Imagine if we didn't pay Flacco in 2012 and than selected Geno Smith in 2013 lol. Certainly debatable, but the success rate is around 50% in finding a quality QB in the first. My general overview of recent drafts: A (quality/capable starters) or B (bust or career backups).
Burrow- A
Herbert- A
Tua- A
Jordan Love-B
Mayfield- B
Darnold- B
Josh Allen- A
Josh Rosen- B
Lamar- A
Kyler Murray-B
Daniel Jones-A
Dwayne Haskins- B
Trubisky- B
Mahommes-A
Watson-A
Goff- A
Wentz-B
Paxton Lynch(lol)- B

"Safe" move is paying Lamar long term and lock him in, but roster construction is going to suffer from that contract whether people are willing to admit it or not. The same folks screaming to pay Lamar whatever he wants now, will be the crying about firing EDC because position group X sucks. Its puts even more pressure on EDC to be perfect in the draft. I do think we could figure it out and be competitive, but there will be holes for sure. Ultimately I don't think the front office meets the asking price, that's rarely been our style. We are conservative(or cheap by some standards) in nature. I do agree though, when its your turn to pay, you pay top market value, which I'm ok with. Just not the Watson deal, if thats his hill, you let him die on it and we enter the draft lottery flush with picks.
 
OURavensFan said:
Do this on Reddit and they’ll call you a white supremacist
Click to expand...
lol I'm not even white. Makes me think of the Chappelle skit when he is a blind KKK lol
 
BoredMarine13 said:
Watching Burrow direct the offense is impressive. You can tell he is in complete control and reading the defense well. Lamar will always be the better athlete but he falls well short with intellect. He simply isn’t operating on the same level as the best QBs in the league. Roman takes some of that blame, but Lamar needs to improve if he wants longevity as a starter.
Click to expand...

You can't direct an offense with no time on the play clock. I've said fire Roman for 2 seasons now simply due to we have no idea what Lamar can shoulder in a a creative pass offense. It's no insecurity about him but you won't see any qb doing those things in this kind of offense. There's also a slight difference in talent on the Bengals offense.

You can literally find an article about Greg Roman from 2013 and had I changed the name of the team and players he's dealing with you'd swear it was written right after the Browns game. He didn't design this offense for Lamar. He's been running this same trash ass scheme for over a decade and the same thing happens every time. Starts hot flames out and is figured out.

I keep trying to post the link but not showing up. Google 49ers Greg Roman and it should be the first result
 
Last edited:
BoredMarine13 said:
The risk of moving on from Lamar is very high. Imagine if we didn't pay Flacco in 2012 and than selected Geno Smith in 2013 lol. Certainly debatable, but the success rate is around 50% in finding a quality QB in the first. My general overview of recent drafts: A (quality/capable starters) or B (bust or career backups).
Burrow- A
Herbert- A
Tua- A
Jordan Love-B
Mayfield- B
Darnold- B
Josh Allen- A
Josh Rosen- B
Lamar- A
Kyler Murray-B
Daniel Jones-A
Dwayne Haskins- B
Trubisky- B
Mahommes-A
Watson-A
Goff- A
Wentz-B
Paxton Lynch(lol)- B

"Safe" move is paying Lamar long term and lock him in, but roster construction is going to suffer from that contract whether people are willing to admit it or not. The same folks screaming to pay Lamar whatever he wants now, will be the crying about firing EDC because position group X sucks. Its puts even more pressure on EDC to be perfect in the draft. I do think we could figure it out and be competitive, but there will be holes for sure. Ultimately I don't think the front office meets the asking price, that's rarely been our style. We are conservative(or cheap by some standards) in nature. I do agree though, when its your turn to pay, you pay top market value, which I'm ok with. Just not the Watson deal, if thats his hill, you let him die on it and we enter the draft lottery flush with picks.
Click to expand...
End of day, franchise basically needs to decide if he's "the guy" they want to hitch their wagon to. If they think the best Lamar we've seen is in the present or past, they shouldn't look to commit long term. If they think he'll improve and playoff wins will mount, lock him up.

If they think he's the guy that the franchise basically can't operate well without, then you pay him whatever, and you let other problems come and deal with them as needed.

I hope we do keep Lamar, because I think he can win us a ton long term. However, I certainly understand the point of view that if you haven't won much when he's cheap, there's not a whole lot of reason to think you'll win much when he's expensive. Fans can point to the HC, the OC, the GM, the WRs, the Oline, or literally whatever else they want to come up with. But a lot of those guys are still going to be here for a long time, unless we start losing a lot, and if we start losing a lot, there's really no point in locking up a franchise QB anyway, so its sort of a circular reference.
 
BoredMarine13 said:
The risk of moving on from Lamar is very high. Imagine if we didn't pay Flacco in 2012 and than selected Geno Smith in 2013 lol. Certainly debatable, but the success rate is around 50% in finding a quality QB in the first. My general overview of recent drafts: A (quality/capable starters) or B (bust or career backups).
Burrow- A
Herbert- A
Tua- A
Jordan Love-B
Mayfield- B
Darnold- B
Josh Allen- A
Josh Rosen- B
Lamar- A
Kyler Murray-B
Daniel Jones-A
Dwayne Haskins- B
Trubisky- B
Mahommes-A
Watson-A
Goff- A
Wentz-B
Paxton Lynch(lol)- B

"Safe" move is paying Lamar long term and lock him in, but roster construction is going to suffer from that contract whether people are willing to admit it or not. The same folks screaming to pay Lamar whatever he wants now, will be the crying about firing EDC because position group X sucks. Its puts even more pressure on EDC to be perfect in the draft. I do think we could figure it out and be competitive, but there will be holes for sure. Ultimately I don't think the front office meets the asking price, that's rarely been our style. We are conservative(or cheap by some standards) in nature. I do agree though, when its your turn to pay, you pay top market value, which I'm ok with. Just not the Watson deal, if thats his hill, you let him die on it and we enter the draft lottery flush with picks.
Click to expand...
I’d rather have Lamar under contract and a weak roster for the next few years, than try the opposite, the only caveat is that we gotta scrap the whole philosophy and try something new, because the run first, heavy formation, high-low, heavy improvisation, 2-3 routes philosophy is looking like a complete bust of an offensive design. I don’t fault anyone for sticking with it, because it was definitely worth a shot, Greg Roman unquestionably has one of the most innovative and creative run games I’ve ever seen, combining Lamar, andrews, ricard, and Roman was a worthwhile concept, but it didn’t work, nfl defenses are too good, it now becomes a failure on harbs if we continue
 
JoeyFlex5 said:
I’d rather have Lamar under contract and a weak roster for the next few years, than try the opposite, the only caveat is that we gotta scrap the whole philosophy and try something new, because the run first, heavy formation, high-low, heavy improvisation, 2-3 routes philosophy is looking like a complete bust of an offensive design. I don’t fault anyone for sticking with it, because it was definitely worth a shot, Greg Roman unquestionably has one of the most innovative and creative run games I’ve ever seen, combining Lamar, andrews, ricard, and Roman was a worthwhile concept, but it didn’t work, nfl defenses are too good, it now becomes a failure on harbs if we continue
Click to expand...
Also why I think the franchise tag for at least one year makes sense.
Do people really want to fire Roman and extend Lamar at basically the same time? I don't. If we're getting rid of Roman, which I think we should, I want to see what that looks like before I marry the franchise QB to a record-breaking deal. If I go out and extend Lamar, and a new OC doesn't magically transform this into a highly functional offense, that's a "everybody gets fired" scenario. From Eric to John to Lamar. They're all gone as soon as they can get rid of them if that happens.

If it were me, I'd want to get a pretty decent look at a new OC first. And the franchise tag for 1 (or maybe even 2) years is a way to do it. May not be the optimal way, but it's something.

I'll also say that, even when/if Roman gets fired, I don't think you'll all of the sudden see the FO get aggressive with the receiving room and add multiple high-end playmakers to it. I think people having this expectation that by the 2023 season we're going to have a stud OC and a bunch of new weapons are probably fooling themselves a little bit, and probably need to temper expectations. That's a multi-year process, not a one year process.
 
JoeyFlex5 said:
I gotta tell you I’m shocked to hear you aren’t white
Click to expand...
Been hearing similar stuff all my life lol. I just refuse to lower my standard because of my race or culture. Honestly the most racist people I've met aren't white.
 
BoredMarine13 said:
Been hearing similar stuff all my life lol. I just refuse to lower my standard because of my race or culture. Honestly the most racist people I've met aren't white.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t say it’s anything about standard, just that the “guns and coffee” avatar absolutely screams “I’m a Steven Crowder fan” and that guy has an extremely narrow demographic lolol
 
JoeyFlex5 said:
I’d rather have Lamar under contract and a weak roster for the next few years, than try the opposite, the only caveat is that we gotta scrap the whole philosophy and try something new, because the run first, heavy formation, high-low, heavy improvisation, 2-3 routes philosophy is looking like a complete bust of an offensive design. I don’t fault anyone for sticking with it, because it was definitely worth a shot, Greg Roman unquestionably has one of the most innovative and creative run games I’ve ever seen, combining Lamar, andrews, ricard, and Roman was a worthwhile concept, but it didn’t work, nfl defenses are too good, it now becomes a failure on harbs if we continue
Click to expand...
If folks were honest they would realize GRo is the reason Lamar was MVP in 2019. Problem here is as some thought early on, that plan with Lamar is not sustainable.
 
Tank said:
If folks were honest they would realize GRo is the reason Lamar was MVP in 2019. Problem here is, as some thought early on, that plan is not sustainable.
Click to expand...
lol... he's the reason Lamar won mvp? I suppose Caldwell is the reason we won the SB.

I would bet a large sum of money many said they didn't want that style of offense to continue which is why a large portion of us have wanted Roman gone.

Been saying this and will keep saying it. One of the dumbest things this franchise has done if they truly believe in Lamar is keeping Roman around the past 2 years. At minimum we should have been on OC number 2 this year to see what he could do in another scheme. Now you're at a crossroads where it seems like you're questioning his capability but I personally don't think you can't rightfully judge him AND now you have to decide whether to pay him. That said we know he can carry a semi-competent team to the post season but how will things look when he's taking up a large portion of the cap? I'm all for dumping Harbaugh if we could bring in Payton but highly doubt we would because he comes off as a scumbag and we know how this franchise loves to preserve it's image.
 
Last edited:
redrum52 said:
You can't direct an offense with no time on the play clock. I've said fire Roman for 2 seasons now simply due to we have no idea what Lamar can shoulder in a a creative pass offense. It's no insecurity about him but you won't see any qb doing those things in this kind of offense. There's also a slight difference in talent on the Bengals offense.

You can literally find an article about Greg Roman from 2013 and had I changed the name of the team and players he's dealing with you'd swear it was written right after the Browns game. He didn't design this offense for Lamar. He's been running this same trash ass scheme for over a decade and the same thing happens every time. Starts hot flames out and is figured out.

I keep trying to post the link but not showing up. Google 49ers Greg Roman and it should be the first result
Click to expand...
You're not wrong.

Doing the same shit for more than a decade
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top